Talk:Great Hurricane of 1780
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management. |
Contents |
[edit] Deaths
If you give a range of 20-30,000 killed, doesn't that imply an estimate? RedWolf 06:19, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
I have added Hurricane Katrina to the list. The death toll seems like it will be quite substantial as well. (Anonymous user) 00:09, Sep 4, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dates
I have some information that might extend the hurricane's timeline and location. From http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/history/
Year: 1780
Date(s): 14-19 October
Principle Affected Area(s): Northeast Florida coastal waters - not counted
Landfall Point(s): Unknown, likely an offshore event.
Remarks: Apparently the series of legendary October hurricanes were making their presence felt along the northeast Florida coast. It is possible the strongest of the three, the 11-18 October “Great Hurricane”, may have come closer to the Florida peninsula than previously thought. Mr. Josiah Smith made the following report from St. Augustine, “Thursday 19th October. The weather as mentioned on Saturday, growing worse, by Sunday evening it came on to Rain and blow excessive hard, and till the evening of yesterday was a mere Gale at about N. N. E. by which means the Sea came in very heavily upon the front of the Town and raised the Tide several feet higher than common, and which ran through some of the Lanes up to the Second Street, above 150 feet from the bay...” South Carolina Historical Quarterly, Volume XXXIII, 1932, Josiah Smith Diary, Page 24.
Close Severe erosion occurred with this event.
It is possible the “Great Hurricane” came closer to the coast than previously realized and the pressure gradient may have been very tight along the coast. This report could also be attributed to “Solano’s Storm” in the later portion of the period.
Summary: This storm will not be counted as a hurricane, but it may be that the fringes of one, or more, of the series of “Great Hurricanes” influenced the study area.
Should we mention it at all in the article? There is only a few days of history on the storm, and this may be an extension of it. Hurricanehink 02:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Todo
There may not be much more information on this storm in which case it could qualify as B-class. But at least it needs references. Jdorje 07:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Jdoje, since the 7th and 8th most fatal storms are 1775, 1776, you might slightly extend your worst hurricanes table so people are better aware that bad news can come in several kinds of "triples" - next time they might leave sooner, prepare better or administrate more wisely. Specific to the GH of 1780 details, you might look into the report of bark stripping - that indicates extreme wind speeds, perhaps 200 mph, either water spouts galore or truly a great hurricane... --69.178.31.177 20:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sun Spots?
What is the information on sun spots doing in the article? I read the link and it provided only a vague hints at why the information might be relevant. Does anyone have concrete information that sunspots and intense hurricanes might be linked? If so, add the paragraph back, but it looked like vandalism to me, so I took the liberty of removing it. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië)
- I agree that the link was bogus, but it seems fairly likely the information was accurate. If a real source can be found, the info could be added back...though obviously this article isn't the best place for it, there's so little real information on this storm that anything interesting could help. Jdorje 04:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The storm record is a fact, the sunspot record and (longer) corresponding radionucleotide depositions are facts. Globally several sets of PhD+ astrophysicists have embryonic research in this area (solar activity) for climate and weather. Frankly I have never seen a good physical/energy model of the magnetosphere and solar activity for weather/climate, among several potential fundamental areas of solar activity modelling. (Not that I have especially looked either. Also IPCC has simply noted solar activity modeling as a wistful wish and seems to have ignored even doing the fundamentals). Interesting trivia seems quite appropriate, given the physical parallels, now and then. Progressive science frequently starts with observation and curiosity followed by measurement, record keeping and analysis. --69.178.31.177 20:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- They may be facts but you still have to include sources. The link you give doesn't mention anything about the 1780 period. — jdorje (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The trivia section has two serious points about an anomalous coincidence: (1) that really bad news can come in clusters, a realization that the folks in NO did not seem to fully grasp - i.e. a hundred year storm doesn't mean you are safe for another 99 and in fact something worse might be coming (review the hurricane KIA results, 1775 through 1785, serially by year), (2) solar & (exo-)atmospheric physics for weather is not a done deal either, but this is only an interesting note of coincidence, not a claim.--Incogm 10:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
